compiler options. These modules are then free for the World to
use by authority of sec. 1 of the GPL.

What in the world are you talking about? Read 17 USC 201. Read it
again. To copy and distribute a collective work containing
copyrighted elements requires separate permission from the
copyright holders of those elements. That permission extends only
to use in that collective work. Any other permission you have in
those elements is irrelevant. Just because you are allowed to copy
and distribute them separately does not give you permission to use
them in a collective work.

You are attempting to create a *new* collective works copyright
similar to the 17 USC 106(2) right to prepare derivative works. There
is *no* exclusive copyright to control the preparation of a collective
work outside of permission to copy and distribute the preexisting
materials. You may place *contractual* restrictions on the preexisting
work concerning collective works -- but we all understand that the GPL
is a license and not a contract, so that option isn't available.

The only permission to use GPLed elements in a collective work is
when the work as a whole is distributed under the GPL.

As Alexander previously stated, 17 USC sec. 201(c) limits the author
of a collective work to new *ownership* privileges comprised of the
right to copy and distribute the collective work "as a whole* and does
*not* give the collective work author any ownership rights in the
separate preexisting contributions. Section 201(c) compliments 17 USC
103(b):
"(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished
from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply
any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such
work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope,
duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in
the preexisting material."
Sincerely,
Rjack